Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1887-10-06

The statement" is false both in its as
sertions and its suggestions.
First-As to its assertions. The pen
sion story of the Forty+ninth Congress is
this:
Pension bills passed in the two sessions. .499
Bill approved by Cleveland. d........6 66S
Bills vetoed by Cleveland .. .124
Bills become laws by lapse of time without
Cleveland's approval 156
Bill 'pOcketed" by Cleveland ..... L
Total .946
OF the bills passed TAI were in the
first session of that Congress and POP in
the second session.
OF the bills vetoed, 101 we're in the
first session and 2S in the second.
OF the bills become laws without the
Presidents signature, 154 we're in the
first session and two in the second.
The "pocketed" bill was in the first
session.
make up this table from the Con
gressional Record, the U. s. statutes and
other data, and believe the figures to be
exactly correct.
The truth, therefore, is that President
Cleveland approved" about two-thirds
of the bills passed, vetoed" over one
eighth and "dodged" as to the remainder.
Second-As to the suggestions of the
statement. Its purpose is to contrast
the Grant, Hayes and Arthur pension
records with Cleveland's, to the advsn
tage of the latter Now, what are the
facts about those administrations?
OF the 493 pension bills passed under
the Grant Administration Grant vetoed
eight; two because the claimants names
were on the pension roll; another be-
cause the clause in the act about the
minor children of the soldier had no
meaning--T Three were Eyeteed@because
the names of the claimants were borne
on the army rolls as deserters. Anoth-
er because the name of the pensioner
was not correctly given; aud the last
because the soldiers company was not
correctly stated. He signed 4S5. This
is Grants record on pension vetoes.
What is Hayes and Arthur's record ?
Under Hayes SO3 private pension bills
we're passed. He approved them all.
Under Arthur 1876 private pension
bills were passed by Congress. He ap>
proved them all.
Cleveland's approvals were but 66S
out of 949 passed, and are thus 120 less
than Grants and Hayes combined, and
6S less than Arthur's out of a total 153
greater than the former.
The contrast is what might have been
expected in advance of investigation.
Grant, Hayes and Arthur were actually
engaged in the suppression of the rebel+
lion, and were In full personal sympathy
with the armies of the Union. Cleve-
lsn's record as President is not out of
harmony with passiveness as a citizen
during the struggle.
It is true, as claimed, that Cleveland
signed the widows increase bill and the
crippled soldiers increase bill. 1t is
also true that he signed the Mexican
war pension (which awards service
pension as distinguished from disabil>
ity pension to the soldiers of the war.
But it is also true, that within ten days
thereafter he vetoed the bill which pro-
posed application of substantially the
same principle to the soldiers of the
Union. His friends have the floor to
align that extraordinary Discrimination
against the Union soldiery with this
extraordinary pretension of friendship
for them.
1t is part of the same programme to
claim, also, that at this date there are
more Union soldiers in the Government
service than at any previous period,
This ought to be true, considering the
laws inherited by this Administration
from its predecessors distinctly direct
that preference shall always be given,
other things being equal, to the honora
bly, discharged Union soldiers. If it be
not true, this Administration must have
steadily violated this law. But in view
of the proved missatements touching
pension bills, and of what is known con.
cerning the methods adopted in filling
those classes of appointments to which
the civil service law was construed not
to apply, and as to which, therefore.
there was held TO be no limit to the dis
erection of the appointing power, | am
warranted in saying that until this last
claim be clearly proved by published
lists of removals, and appointments
made, it must suffer from the discredlt
thrown upon its twin.
Undoubtedly the Pension Office is do
ing great deal of work. Congress in
tended that 1t should, when the addition.
al agents and clerks literally given that
Office to meet the new and increasing
demands upon it left its chief without
excuse for delays. Had the Commits
sioDer of Pensions been less vigorous in
administration, he would have been
simply derelict in duty. But that fact
does not hide from the public the other
fact that while he has been granting